Vancouver Leadership debate 2

Niki Ashton: The best passion and energy by far, but too low on substance. Her best moment was defending her drug manufacturing against Singh. If Niki would stop treating treating debates like campaign rallies and focus that passion and energy more on her ideas, of which she has some great ones, she'd be unstoppable. As it she slips to third on my ballot should it arrive.

Nash was likable, but seems to try for Niki's passion, but it comes off fake. Still very likable. See Dewar.below.

Dewar made a nice attempt at making Nash look like a flip flopper again, and it looked like it,would succeed again, but Nash turned it into a blatant attempt to appeal to Cullen supporters. Cleaver move, but risky on Nash's part, she risks alienating voters who hate the liberals, but if she is on the final ballot she's boosted her chances of beating Mulcair by,appealing to Cullen voters. Downside is it maybe harder to get there now. Dewar was more animated this time and it suited him.

Cullen, funny as hell, but without being class clown he moves up to second on my ballot.

Topp I agree his best debate by far, he's starting to build retail experience, his doing so well is bad news for Nash, although he lobbed the biggest soft ball at her. See Singh below.

Mulcair is awesome, but STOP READING YOUR NOTES, during opening statements and closing,statements. In between he rocked. Someone on twitter mention the Cullen, Dewar, Nash, and Topp benifited from Mulcair not being allowed in thier four way segment. I have a better understanding of where Mulcair wants to take the organization of the NDP and its alot less top down then the Jurist feared. Much more regional flavour, but retaining the national message of tripled bottom line sustainablity. That sinched it for me, Mulcair as winner. Two gripes though, one he needs to focus more on those in general labour and trades and I'm not,a fan,of forcing university education to conform to the economy, I see universities as more then employee factories.

Singh. I'm going to go against the grain and takes Singh's side. Brian's greatest problem isn't charm, which,is,greatly improving, its with honesty. Was anything Singh said false, did Singh have it wrong? No. Brian Topp misrepresented things in a way that was condsending to Singh, Topp knew what Singh was saying was true, Singh even proved it, but,Topp still denied it. Topp made a statement he knew to be false. Which is lie by dictionary defination. Singh should not have took it personally, but Topp has to share the blame. Topp has also made up that Mulcair said he wants to move the party to the centre when Mulcair has said repeatedly that he does not want to move the party to the centre. Again misrepersentation. As for the God Bless thing, I have no problem with Singh's faith and clearly that was targetted to his religious base, not just sikhs, but religious dippers and a demographic which I believe will be key in defeating the tories.

There's more to it. But at the debate, Singh mismanaged it. Topp stayed out of it completely. And Cullen looked like a peacemaking, positive guy.

Outside the debate, it's been a total mess. Topp shouldn't have gotten insulting ("you haven't read the proposal"), and shouldn't have insinuated it's in there when it's not, when he could have easily said "well, I'm not going to write up every legal exception in a quick proposal, but obviously we wouldn't be punishing charities". When Singh finally pointed out that it wasn't in the proposal, he shouldn't have accused Topp of being a liar and wanting to punish charities. We're all New Democrats, and we should assume good faith with each other.

But most people haven't been following every debate that closely. A lot of people have only started tuning in within the past few weeks, since the membership deadline basically.

I said it after Winnipeg and I'll say it again, Dewar is a Nerd! No one would vote for that guy for PM. He looks like a nerd, he sounds like a nerd, and he speaks like a nerd, bleech!!! (by the way, I probably was a nerd all the way through high school; hated rock, loved big band music and got beat up all the time, so I know one when I see one). There is no way I would vote for that guy and anyone who would consider it needs to have their head examined!

Ashton is simply too young. That is where the roboticness comes from. She is trying to sell Gravitas but it is backfiring. She has a very bright future, and I am certain she will be Canada's first Female PM!

Cullen great as always! I wish I was sure about his ability to win in Quebec, but I'm not.

Topp, better, but no way I'm voting for a party insider.

Singh, sigh! He'll get better, and his opinions will mmoderate with time.

Nash, I am so dissapointed by her. I really, really wanted to like her enought to vote for her as leader. Maybe she'll grow, but not ready now. She is genuine, smart, and I see she has real empathy. She would be a great leader some day if she can develop a bit of "Royal Jelly".

I'm still voting for Tom. I think he is a fighter and can win. I have my concerns, but trust the caucus he has around him. We saw so many of them today, so I am not worried about his being kept "on the path". More importantly, I turst the party membership to keep Tom and the rest of these guys, "honest".

I went to the debate in Vancouver but didn't get there early enough to get a seat in the main room. There was an overflow room with a large screen (perhaps several) and I'd estimate at least couple hundred people in that room.

At no point did I hear anyone clap for something Dewar said. At one point when Dewar was speaking someone yelled "We want someone else!" and there was only laughter in response.

Cullen likely got the most applause. Mulcair, Topp, Ashton, and Nash (I'd estimate in that order, although it's hard to tell) all got good applause at several points.

I agree with others that Peggy Nash performed better today than at other times in the past. I think for me a part of that was her response to Paul Dewar. Dewar seems like a candidate that others don't take seriously, at least in rhetoric. I appreciated Nash's ability to respond to Dewar so effectively, in a way that would have been condescending if she weren't so nice. What has been an issue for me with Nash is that she tells us that she's the one to lead but doesn't seem to really show us that she beleves it. Much better today.

Mulcair seemed uninspiring to me, but likely performed as well as he needed to. He seemed to have support in the room and he is truthfully able to say that he ran a positive campaign. Also I thought some of his answers about generational inopportunity gave a good diagnosis of the problem (although a real solution plan was lacking).

I think Topp gave a few really great answers although he still seemed a bit awkward to me at other times. I think mostly he gets a bit shifty when he talks about what a positive campaign he has run. I think Topp has articulated a very clear direction to take and that means a lot to me.

I thought Ashton answered some questions really well, but I also saw some robotic platitudes. I think she should have owned the youth related questions more than she did. When the moderator interrupted her to ask, specifically, what would she do to get young people to vote, I think Ashton should have been able to knock it out of the park. And so she missed an opportunity there. I thought her closing statement was a bit overdone but it got big big cheers in the room.

I thought Cullen did great. I love his humour and would rate him high on that alone. While I'm not a fan of his joint nomination plan, I do think he was able to respond well to questions about it. Also I felt like he is the most genuine of all the candidates. Maybe this is presence or oratorical skill or something but at no point did I feel like he was giving us platitudes/bs (I think we got this at some point from evey other candidate).

Well, I guess I was speaking more globally. I agree Topp was encouraging today, and Peggy is best when she is being Peggy.

But, I still think Tom is our best option. The real problem is that all these candidates are so good that it is really hard to choose. I can just imagine when the Libs hold their leadership contest how much we are going to have to listen to "how superior the Lib leadership field is to anything that was offered by the NDP in their boring leadership contest" garbage.

By the way, I am not trying to flip flop, but I may just have done a bit of that right now...Ouch, that hurts this old Sailor's back!

Arthur, it warmed the cockles of my heart to see Ashton and Cullen pucker up, because Ashton kept referring to Nathan as "Mr. Cullen" during the debate, even getting a hilarious retort from Nathan on that account. These two are obviously very good friends, and they make each other laugh.

And Peggy and Brian - that was so nice to see, old comrades puckering up for the cause.

I went to the debate in Vancouver but didn't get there early enough to get a seat in the main room. There was an overflow room with a large screen (perhaps several) and I'd estimate at least couple hundred people in that room.

At no point did I hear anyone clap for something Dewar said. At one point when Dewar was speaking someone yelled "We want someone else!" and there was only laughter in response.

Cullen likely got the most applause. Mulcair, Topp, Ashton, and Nash (I'd estimate in that order, although it's hard to tell) all got good applause at several points.

I agree with others that Peggy Nash performed better today than at other times in the past. I think for me a part of that was her response to Paul Dewar. Dewar seems like a candidate that others don't take seriously, at least in rhetoric. I appreciated Nash's ability to respond to Dewar so effectively, in a way that would have been condescending if she weren't so nice. What has been an issue for me with Nash is that she tells us that she's the one to lead but doesn't seem to really show us that she beleves it. Much better today.

Mulcair seemed uninspiring to me, but likely performed as well as he needed to. He seemed to have support in the room and he is truthfully able to say that he ran a positive campaign. Also I thought some of his answers about generational inopportunity gave a good diagnosis of the problem (although a real solution plan was lacking).

I think Topp gave a few really great answers although he still seemed a bit awkward to me at other times. I think mostly he gets a bit shifty when he talks about what a positive campaign he has run. I think Topp has articulated a very clear direction to take and that means a lot to me.

I thought Ashton answered some questions really well, but I also saw some robotic platitudes. I think she should have owned the youth related questions more than she did. When the moderator interrupted her to ask, specifically, what would she do to get young people to vote, I think Ashton should have been able to knock it out of the park. And so she missed an opportunity there. I thought her closing statement was a bit overdone but it got big big cheers in the room.

I thought Cullen did great. I love his humour and would rate him high on that alone. While I'm not a fan of his joint nomination plan, I do think he was able to respond well to questions about it. Also I felt like he is the most genuine of all the candidates. Maybe this is presence or oratorical skill or something but at no point did I feel like he was giving us platitudes/bs (I think we got this at some point from evey other candidate).

Thanks a lot for the analysis from the frontlines.

Even though a lot of us have been following the race from the beginning, I think this might still be the first or second debate for a lot of less devoted NDP supporters.

This debate really is last minute. Most people have put their vote in already. I still haven't received my voting package, so I guess I'll have some scrambling to do tomorrow.

I watched the debate with a roomfull of partisan Mulcair supporters who cheered him lustily at several points. Notably for his exchange with Ashton and for his closing statement. The consensus was great satisafaction with Tom's performance and general belief that he had won.

I think myself that it was more or less a four way tie with Cullen ahead by a nose. Mulcair can be said to have done well largely because he was attacked by four of the other candidates and fended off their sallies very capably. I am not sure why they persisted in this approach debate after debate. The same questions, or at least close variants, were asked repeatedly. Ashton asked him essentially the same question in each of the last three debates.

This strategy of putting Mulcair on the defensive has not worked in my view. It has served to give him much more air time than the other candidates. More importantly it never has drawn any real blood. They should have known that Mulcair is very capable of standing up for himself and the more he demonstrates that he can do so the more voters are comfortable with him.

I thought Nash and Topp were better than before and that Cullen did quite well. But this serves Mulcair's purposes as well. If three of his pricipal opponents do well (the less said about Dewar the better- he may actually have done better in the French debate) it is harder for anyone to break out of the pack and present a clear challenge to Mulcair. He is clearly in a better position to win if the vote split is 30 -15-15-15 than if it is 30-25-10-10.

So on balance I think Mulcair was advantaged today because:

1. He protected his vote.

2. He made it safe for undecideds to move to him

3. No one has emerged as his clear challenger.

I would be interested in hearing more about the crowd reactions and the turnouts at the respective parties.

No one kissed Singh? It's like that Boxcar Willy song, poor Elijah, never been kissed, lol!

Didn't Marvin Mouse from Archie Wood used to sing that song?

I might as well start by singing Nathan Cullen's praises in this debate, because I don't plan to award him for his performance (riding cooperation plan).

That question Nathan Cullen asked Singh was gold - he was able to ding both Topp and Singh while coming out smelling like roses. Note that Cullen did not just say apologise but gave his own interpretation/re cap of what Singh said about Topp first - Cullen. It reminded me of my eldest (now 30) in daycare talking about a classmate who used inappropriate language: "MOM! Pino was a bad boy because he said X, Y and Z. I'm a good boy because I don't say X, Y and Z. MOM, I'm a good boy because I don't say X, Y and Z."

I get the feeling that the Mr Cullen / Christmas Cards bit was to throw Ashton off her game - because she has a limited time to give her second question and it was his attempt to trip her up and, later, to somewhat evade a line of questioning he was not completely comfortable with. Nathan Cullen can be very endearing while he is trying to trip up his opponents and throw them off their game.

Singh seemed genuinely offended, both by the idea that he was not smart enough to come up with his own strategy and with the idea that he should apologise to Topp when Topp started it, in his opinion. Singh did come off as someone who holds grudges. He may have found the "side-kick" allegation offensive. Singh mentioned that he was pro-choice and believed in God because he feels that they run counter to Sikh stereotypes - the former shows that, in his opinion, he did not switch Gods so much as switched religions (ie interpretations of God). The "God Bless Canada" thing, I think, was to appeal to Sikhs who see themselves as loyal Canadians and to the religious left (Social Gospel, Bundists, progressive Muslims) who don't feel that they should check their religion at the door.

One thing that I have noticed, even when Singh talked about his religion on line, is that he tends to stick to the aspects that the Sikh and Protestant religions share rather than focus on the differences between the two.

I haven't been on babble in a while so anyways, what I thought of each of the candidates was that aside from Singh they all did very well.

Singh has grown to be more irritating, his attack on ideology when debating Niki was really insulting to me. I felt personally insulted.

Mulcair did well, he has shown that he has a calm personality. I could personally tell when he is spinning, but then again I assume most Canadians won't pick up on his spin. He has a certain degree of cunning.

Topp keeps on improving, its a shame that this is the last debate. I hope there are more unofficial debates to see how he grows. I noticed he did lob a softball to Peggy. I liked his reference to political leaders who (Hollande who is slapping Sarkozy around in the polls) are fighting for tax fairness. Regarding his constant confrontations with Singh, he should have at the beginning paraphrased Clement Attlee's view on charity vs taxes. Singh would have been dead in the water. What would he have done? Attacked the greatest prime minister the UK ever had? Ahhhh, the missed oppertunities are the most interesting eh.

Nash did very well, but I am yet again worried on her ability to give a straight answer. Sometimes Nash, there is a great beauty in being direct with a yes or no response.

Dewar did well, but I still fear he is a deer in the headlights.

Cullen is funny, but he did get owned by Mulcair. Unfortunately he has turned his candidacy into a one issue thing, when he had other great policies/a personality.

At the end of this debate I know who my #1 candidate is, but the rest is a mystery to me. Only time will tell and I do hope for a critique of my views from objective people regarding this debate.

Based on your statement, "Mulcair wants to take the organization of the NDP and its alot less top down then the Jurist feared. Much more regional flavour, but retaining the national message of tripled bottom line sustainablity," what is triple bottom line sustainability? I hope you or someone else can help me.

Based on your statement, "Mulcair wants to take the organization of the NDP and its alot less top down then the Jurist feared. Much more regional flavour, but retaining the national message of tripled bottom line sustainablity," what is triple bottom line sustainability? I hope you or someone else can help me.

i've just been thinking and talking about this debate for the past couple hours, here are a few more thoughts:

topp really is a clever guy. from his first answer on culture, i felt like he took the words right out of my mouth, as if he'd spent the last week talking directly to me about how to reboot his campaign in the final days and then took every single bit of my advice. and later, when he very cleverly attacked mulcair in his exchange with nash, you could just feel not only that he knew exactly what to say and how to say it, but that he knew exactly what position mulcair had to take in the debate, a poise that only mulcair has so far demonstrated. and mulcair took precisely that position - he re-iterated many of his longstanding campaign themes, very broadly appealing to the canadian electorate, and avoided falling into any of the pitfalls that a less seasoned campaigned could have delving foolishly into specifics that might confuse or bore his audience. mulcair and topp strike me as very cunning operators, and when their opponents tried to rise to their level (as ashton foolishly attempted in her question to tom, which frankly only made him look better, and cullen, whose little injections here and there gave me the impression that he's really winging it, the charismatic politician par excellence), they just made the two quebecois seem all the more impressive.

singh is really not there, and i'd be disappointed if he became even an ndp mp. it seems clear that he's on a one-man quest to make his mark on the party, and he's feeling frustrated and under-appreciated, and he honestly strikes me as more of a cowboy than even cullen, probably very difficult to work with, the sort of contentious type that i'm sure all of us recognizes from constituency or neighborhood association meetings, or student councils or whatever. i'd wonder if he was even lsd bad.

ashton is the sort of politician i actually don't like at all. knowing i'll offend someone (if people bother to read my posts anymore), i'll say that in a way, her, nash and dewar have come to form this trifecta in my mind of the sort of rah-rah thoughtless party hacks that we really don't need. contrasting her complete lack of nuance with the masterfully subtle attacks levelled by topp and the pitch-perfect defensive performance of mulcair, it's actually a wonder that she hasn't yet dropped out. she doesn't speak for the youth, she doesn't represent new politics, and she doesn't really bring anything to the race. it was her best debate, but not a good one, imo.

having watched dewar's past few performances, i can't fathom who his constituency is. the guy is profoundly inarticulate, near unilingual, and even after all this time, he hasn't any more substance to his discourse that he did when he began. i actually even wonder if this guy belongs on the front bench at all, he has this george bush look sometimes like he thinks he's made a good point when he hasn't, like he knows he probably shouldn't be there.

ashton is the sort of politician i actually don't like at all. knowing i'll offend someone (if people bother to read my posts anymore), i'll say that in a way, her, nash and dewar have come to form this trifecta in my mind of the sort of rah-rah thoughtless party hacks that we really don't need. contrasting her complete lack of nuance with the masterfully subtle attacks levelled by topp and the pitch-perfect defensive performance of mulcair, it's actually a wonder that she hasn't yet dropped out. she doesn't speak for the youth, she doesn't represent new politics, and she doesn't really bring anything to the race. it was her best debate, but not a good one, imo.

Much of the criticism Ashton has faced in this campaign she has faced simply because she is a young woman, a refelection of the fact that the only appropriate role our culture tells young women to play is that of pretty sex objects. Sloganeering? Which candidate hasn't done that this race? She speaks 5 languages, an important skill set in an increasingly interconnected world. How many languages can the other candidates speak? She has also faced voters in the public and won 2 out of 3 of those contests. How many times has Brian Topp done that? And to deride her because she's "too young?" Funny, that sounds exactly like the lines the Liberals and Conservatives used about the NDP candidates in Quebec. Is that to say that young people shouldn't be involved in politics and should not be taken seriously? And we wonder why voter turnout is so low among that age group?

Make no mistake, if her name was Nickolas Ashton instead, she would not be facing this kind of criticism.

ashton is the sort of politician i actually don't like at all. knowing i'll offend someone (if people bother to read my posts anymore), i'll say that in a way, her, nash and dewar have come to form this trifecta in my mind of the sort of rah-rah thoughtless party hacks that we really don't need. contrasting her complete lack of nuance with the masterfully subtle attacks levelled by topp and the pitch-perfect defensive performance of mulcair, it's actually a wonder that she hasn't yet dropped out. she doesn't speak for the youth, she doesn't represent new politics, and she doesn't really bring anything to the race. it was her best debate, but not a good one, imo.

Much of the criticism Ashton has faced in this campaign she has faced simply because she is a young woman, a refelection of the fact that the only appropriate role our culture tells young women to play is that of pretty sex objects. Sloganeering? Which candidate hasn't done that this race? She speaks 5 languages, an important skill set in an increasingly interconnected world. How many languages can the other candidates speak? She has also faced voters in the public and won 2 out of 3 of those contests. How many times has Brian Topp done that? And to deride her because she's "too young?" Funny, that sounds exactly like the lines the Liberals and Conservatives used about the NDP candidates in Quebec. Is that to say that young people shouldn't be involved in politics and should not be taken seriously? And we wonder why voter turnout is so low among that age group?

Make no mistake, if her name was Nickolas Ashton instead, she would not be facing this kind of criticism.

I like your comment! I agree with you, i dont like who says "shes too young" dont matter how old she is, i wanna see she win! she will be ever young and woman prime minister!

I wonder is there any youngest or woman prime minister or presidential in the world? Iceland - woman prime minister etc that all i think now.

I thought Cullen was best in the debate with his combination of timely humour, witty counterpunches, to-the-point explanations and self-composure. Mulcair did a good job of defending himself against the onslaught of attacks, but I think he played it too carefully as the frontrunner trying to avoid a big mistake by reading most of his opening and closing statements. With his skills, he should have showed that he doesn't need to do that. However, while he is not perfect (who is), and I don't agree with all of his policies, I could say that of everyone in the race. The policy differences I do have with him are not any greater than I have with any other candidate. I do think he gives us the best chance of retaining Quebec, countering Harper in Parliament, and winning the next election. I could be wrong about this, but I have learned over time that I am happier about making my own mistakes than copying somebody else's. I have never liked conventions of any party where some people simply follow their choice for leader to whatever candidate he/she endorses when they withdraw or are dropped from the voting list. For that reason alone, I welcome this election process where most people vote before the first results are announced. My recommendation is review whatever information you have and go with your gut feeling.

ashton is the sort of politician i actually don't like at all. knowing i'll offend someone (if people bother to read my posts anymore), i'll say that in a way, her, nash and dewar have come to form this trifecta in my mind of the sort of rah-rah thoughtless party hacks that we really don't need. contrasting her complete lack of nuance with the masterfully subtle attacks levelled by topp and the pitch-perfect defensive performance of mulcair, it's actually a wonder that she hasn't yet dropped out. she doesn't speak for the youth, she doesn't represent new politics, and she doesn't really bring anything to the race. it was her best debate, but not a good one, imo.

Much of the criticism Ashton has faced in this campaign she has faced simply because she is a young woman, a refelection of the fact that the only appropriate role our culture tells young women to play is that of pretty sex objects. Sloganeering? Which candidate hasn't done that this race? She speaks 5 languages, an important skill set in an increasingly interconnected world. How many languages can the other candidates speak? She has also faced voters in the public and won 2 out of 3 of those contests. How many times has Brian Topp done that? And to deride her because she's "too young?" Funny, that sounds exactly like the lines the Liberals and Conservatives used about the NDP candidates in Quebec. Is that to say that young people shouldn't be involved in politics and should not be taken seriously? And we wonder why voter turnout is so low among that age group?

Make no mistake, if her name was Nickolas Ashton instead, she would not be facing this kind of criticism.

Ashton has two really good sides to her, the side that has passion and can emotionally resinate with people which we saw in the debate and the one that has a keen intelligent as seen in her rabble interview where she seemed to focus more on policy then platitudes. See for me Ashton is the most frustrating one, because she has huge, huge,potiential, if she could only combine her intellect with her passion. See Ashton communicates vary well on emotional level, I found her closing speech moving and I think she has tons of heart, but so much of it pours out it blocks content some. I've read her policies and her background, so I know she's very smart, but it just gets crowded out. She needs focus and balance. I don't think FKK gets the value of emotional intelligence and maybe confusing it with being an air head, and I think FKK needs to take another look at her policies and her rabble interview which I felt was the best of the bunch.

That being said I don't assume she'll be the next leader, because the honest truth is is the NDP cacus has an absolute massive amount incredible young talent. That being said Ashton will has a huge edge, but she shouldn't assume it'll be a cakewalk either. Some possible names as future Ashton challengers Alexander Boulterice, Rathika, Anne Qualch, Nathan Cullen who isn't that old himself, and an outside chance Ruth Ellen Broussea if she can manage to get people to get pass the Vegas thing. I suspect people will be surprised by REB, she has this down to earth humble grace about her and she had experience dealing with assholes. Thick skin too.

Some like the 19 year old MP are too politically green to get a grasp on them yet.

I may have thread drifted into the NEXT leadership race by accident. Maybe I should focus on the current one.

Well, I regret that people feel prepared to dicount at least my comments about Ashton being too young. She is 29. That is just simply too young. Period. Age doesn't mean wisdom. But life without experience isn't useful either. Sorry, its how I see it. She has done remarkable things, and certainly contributed more to the world then I will ever do. i don't even pretend to be in her league. But my opinion remains unchanged, and I don't feel a need to apologize in any way for my choice of words, and, won't. Period.

Marvin Mouse? Holy Cow that's a name from the past. I remember him singing Winchester Cathedral. Yikes, I'm old.

My point, my life experience is what it is as is hers. She's not ready.

They are ALL going to be better in the future. Look how far they all have come in a couple short months! Every single one of them improved!

Pierre-Luc Dusseault turned 20 a few days after he was sworn in. The next youngest is Laurin Liu and then there is Charmaine Borg who speaks quite well already and is fully bilingual. Actually, the McGill 4 Rock!

Agree about Alexandre Boulardice (sp?) but maybe Hoang Mai may be up to snuff by then.

Charlie Angus has raved about how good a worker Ruth Ellen Brosseau is a few times and others have mentioned her intelligence. She does seem to prefer to work behind the scenes right now for some reason.

Maybe the point we are all making is that the new leader has an abundance of talent for a Shadow Cabinet.

Ashton has two really good sides to her, the side that has passion and can emotionally resinate with people which we saw in the debate and the one that has a keen intelligent as seen in her rabble interview where she seemed to focus more on policy then platitudes. See for me Ashton is the most frustrating one, because she has huge, huge,potiential, if she could only combine her intellect with her passion. See Ashton communicates vary well on emotional level, I found her closing speech moving and I think she has tons of heart, but so much of it pours out it blocks content some. I've read her policies and her background, so I know she's very smart, but it just gets crowded out. She needs focus and balance. I don't think FKK gets the value of emotional intelligence and maybe confusing it with being an air head, and I think FKK needs to take another look at her policies and her rabble interview which I felt was the best of the bunch.

Very eloquently put, and a legitimate cirtique of Ashton's shortcomings, because it focused on Ashton the person, not some projection. (See, it is possible to be hyper-partisan for your candidate and recognise and accept legitimate shortcomings. Too many people haven't grasped that concept around here.)

Uncle Bob was a bit of a jerk - and got really nasty by the end of the show in that he seemed to want to put everyone else down to make himself look good - even Archie was being put down for not being good enough by the end.

Thinking of it now, How Much is that Doggie in the Window was a bit sexist.

Ashton has a good memory and is trying to get her points across. In comparison to the new MPs, Ashton is now an old lady!

It is true that her experiences are not my experiences, things are shittier for her generation than mine. Ashton has a good education but she knows many her age who have no chance in hell if things keep going the way they are.

Ashton is also the only one to bring up Gaza etc - which means she has guts.

well, aristotle, i didn't say she's too young, indeed, i think ashton's lack of nuance and subtlety actually suggests that she doesn't really get young people these days. and the female thing is irrelevant to me, though i guess that there are some structural barriers to women in politics that one can definitely see ashton over-compensating for (for instance, she was the loudest and most strident of the candidates, to the point that cullen actually scored a huge laughs off of her).

anyway, ashton isn't really the issue, as far as i can tell. the real question for me is to what extent this performance breathes new life into topp's campaign. he was all but forgotten in the mulcair/cullen discussion, his team apparently demoralized to the point of fatalism, and his supporters' 2nd and 3rd ballot support too diffused to make him a real player if he went out early. what we saw tonight was probably what a broadbent-type has always seen, and it should really enthuse his team. i still think he won't play in quebec or canada during an election campaign, but i do believe that tonight could well be a turning point in his campaign, and that this thing just became even more unpredictable. cullen and nash had good outings, mulcair played defense, singh may have stung mulcair by association, ashton probably scored points off the same types who'd support dewar, and dewar himself was completely ineffectual. the media narrative - not predictable - be massive from here on out.

like think about the difference, from tonight, if mulcair racked up another couple big endorsements (say, gregor robertson or david miller, etc) or if topp scored those same endorsements. we could see mulcair fade under a topp final burst, or mulcair put everyone to bed en route to a 1st ballot win. to me, tonight's debate had the potential to upend the race.

Ari, I may be projecting, but I don't feel any differentlty. Sorry, for me this is the same as my being posted to a ship and finding out the CO was under 30. Sorry, I don't want a Skipper whose life experience is going to cause me to worry first about the men, the ship, my colleagues, and then me. A bit of stretch? Ok. But, I can't help feeling the way I do. I don't feel I am off base. She hasn't convinced me otherwise and that is how it is. If the Party picks her as leader, then I will fall dutifully in behind her, as I ALWAYS DO, and do everything I can to help her get elected PM. Its up to the party to decide. Its up to her convince them. It was up to her to convince me, and she didn't.

Vaudree, you are right. Wow, that is amazing. I heard once that Bob became a real boob at the end. As an aside story, I once played in a pickup Pit Band for a local musical special on CTV, when it was CKY. We were rehearsing on the set of the Archie Show. shortly after it was taken off the set. All the books that you saw in the bookshelfs behind Uncle Bob were painted. They all had titles with the word bagel in them, like Farewell to Bagles, the King and Bagles, The Cat in the Bagel, War and Bagles. It was pretty damn funny!

Former party president Brian Topp — once viewed as the candidate to beat — seems to be losing strength. This, despite the fact he has been endorsed by party establishment types including former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow and one-time federal leader Ed Broadbent.

Niki Ashton, MP from northern Manitoba, and Martin Singh, a Nova Scotia pharmacist, are thought to be well behind.

The seven faced off for 90 minutes in the final of six official party debates, this one on challenges facing youth and new Canadians.

An overflow crowd of more than 1,000 showed up for the event at CBC headquarters.

In instances during the debate when contenders were directed to specifically challenge a fellow candidate on a policy issue, most set sights on Mulcair while Cullen got the second most challenges, as if to confirm these two are the greatest threats to the others seeking victory.

“You’ve been critical about our party,” Nash chastised Mulcair at one point.

“It seems like you are a little down on the party,” intoned Dewar. “Where is your plan for inspiration?”

Mulcair, known for his temper, maintained his cool and succeeded in looking dignified and leader-like.

For his part, he lobbed softball questions whenever he was called upon to challenge his competitors, doubtless cognizant of the fact that post-convention, he may have to draw together all members of his caucus, including those less enthused at the prospect of his leadership.

I missed the start of the debate, and was interupted by a robocall poll at one point, but to me, the clear stand outs were Nathan Cullen and Thomas Mulcair. To me, they have both consistently shown to be the best debaters and public speakers in the race. That's not to say the others haven't, just that their performances have varied.I love the "Mr" moment Nathan and Niki had. And I'm very interested in Mulcair mentioning about listening to "local voices",as he put it. I'd love to see him expand on that over the next two weeks.

Wow. You should of course vote for who you want to vote for, but: do you think the rest of them are "party outsiders"? For that matter, would a "party outsider" even be desirable?

"Party insiders" are people who have put years of work into building the victories we saw in 2011. Like, say, Jack Layton. And every single one of the leadership candidates. Not to mention a good many babblers.

Former party president Brian Topp — once viewed as the candidate to beat — seems to be losing strength. This, despite the fact he has been endorsed by party establishment types including former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow and one-time federal leader Ed Broadbent.

Niki Ashton, MP from northern Manitoba, and Martin Singh, a Nova Scotia pharmacist, are thought to be well behind.

The seven faced off for 90 minutes in the final of six official party debates, this one on challenges facing youth and new Canadians.

An overflow crowd of more than 1,000 showed up for the event at CBC headquarters.

In instances during the debate when contenders were directed to specifically challenge a fellow candidate on a policy issue, most set sights on Mulcair while Cullen got the second most challenges, as if to confirm these two are the greatest threats to the others seeking victory.

“You’ve been critical about our party,” Nash chastised Mulcair at one point.

“It seems like you are a little down on the party,” intoned Dewar. “Where is your plan for inspiration?”

Mulcair, known for his temper, maintained his cool and succeeded in looking dignified and leader-like.

For his part, he lobbed softball questions whenever he was called upon to challenge his competitors, doubtless cognizant of the fact that post-convention, he may have to draw together all members of his caucus, including those less enthused at the prospect of his leadership.

Mulcair has said just a billion times that he doesn't plan on shifting the party to the centrr, his platform is to the left of the NDPs last platform, yet all the headlines are convinced he's a centralist. Its biazzaro world because no matter how left wing a policy he puts out, people still say he's centralist.

On the bright side Harper will never be able to smear Mulcair as a left wing extremist no matter what Mulcair preposes. I mean Mulcair could nationalize the fucking Oil Industry and everyone would be convinced it was all an attempt move the NDP to the right.